Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. A.Hak Industrial Services US, LLC

Filing 225

ORDER on status reports by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC, 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, Case No. C14-1971-RAJ v. ORDER A.HAK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES US, LLC, Defendant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter comes before the Court on the status reports of Plaintiff Quest Integrity USA, LLC’s (“Quest”) and Defendant A.Hak Industrial Services US, LLC (“A.Hak”). These reports concern the appropriate course of action following recent decisions by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concerning US Patent No. 7,542,874, the patent at issue in the instant action. Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. CV 14-1482-SLR, 2017 WL 1155381 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2017), on reconsideration in part sub nom. Quest Integrity Usa, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc., No. CV 14-1483-SLR, 2017 WL 1365227 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2017) (orders on summary judgment). The parties agree that, as a consequence of these decisions, a Markman hearing will be unnecessary. They disagree, however, as to the manner in which the litigation should proceed. Quest requests a stay of this action pending its appeal of the Delaware District Court’s orders. A.Hak requests permission to file a motion for summary ORDER – 1 1 judgment on the issue of whether Quest’s patent claims are precluded by the Delaware 2 District Court’s decision under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. A.Hak further requests 3 that summary judgment briefing occur on an expedited schedule. 4 Having reviewed the parties’ status reports, the Court finds that a stay of the 5 instant action would be inappropriate. Tripati v. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir. 6 1988); Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 7 1999) (“The law is well settled that the pendency of an appeal has no effect on the 8 finality or binding effect of a trial court’s holding. That rule is applicable to holdings of 9 patent invalidity as well.”) (citations and brackets omitted). Accordingly, the Court 10 adopts A.Hak’s position that this action should proceed to summary judgment on the 11 issue of collateral estoppel. The Court declines, however, to order briefing on an 12 expedited schedule. 13 DATED this 3rd day of May, 2017. 14 15 A 16 17 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?